State v. Clark

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Clark

315 S.W.3d 734, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 802, 2010 WL 2404166

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 15, 2010

DocketED 92970

StatusPublished

This text of 315 S.W.3d 734 (State v. Clark) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Clark, 315 S.W.3d 734, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 802, 2010 WL 2404166 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Melvin Clark (hereinafter, “Appellant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment after a jury convicted him of two counts of first degree statutory sodomy, Section 566.062 RSMo (2000) and one count of first degree statutory rape, Section 566.032 RSMo (2000). Appellant was sentenced as a persistent offender to twenty-five years’ imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently. In Appellant’s sole point on appeal, he claims the trial court plainly erred in failing to grant him a continuance to obtain private counsel of his choosing.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcript on appeal. No error of law appears. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion, only for the use of the parties, setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Melvin Clark (hereinafter, “Appellant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment after a jury convicted him of two counts of first degree statutory sodomy, Section 566.062 RSMo (2000) and one count of first degree statutory rape, Section 566.032 RSMo (2000). Appellant was sentenced as a persistent offender to twenty-five years’ imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently. In Appellant’s sole point on appeal, he claims the trial court plainly erred in failing to grant him a continuance to obtain private counsel of his choosing.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcript on appeal. No error of law appears. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion, only for the use of the parties, setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

315 S.W.3d 734, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 802, 2010 WL 2404166, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-clark-moctapp-2010.